Giuseppe Aridon, Vice President Strategy and Marketing of Telespazio explains: “DC4EU could represent a valuable platform to enable independent European access to LEO through a ‘customized’ European variant of the Dream Chaser spacecraft. We are willing to explore the potential of such a promising solution, that could be a major element for the setting up of the future European LEO service missions ecosystem, that will see the Dream Chaser operating alongside other European assets and infrastructures for first of a kind transatlantic partnership in this field, with true a global perspective!”

So this isnt just sticking an existing DC on an Ariane 6, but a separate derivative for Europe.

Logged

"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

JWST is a joint ESA/NASA mission, with the launch being part of ESA's contribution. DC4EU would be a totally different game, with ESA purchasing a product from an American company and no NASA involvement.

I see several problems with the idea. One of those is ITAR. Another would be European governments writing a huge check to purchase a major component from an non-European company. ESA doesn't usually do this, because its main purpose is to stimulate EU space technology. They would rather pay more to pay for jobs and technological knowledge in Europe.

The only way I could see it working would be to license the vehicle design and have it built by Airbus, ThalesAlenia or some other European company.

Another minor niggle is the name DC4EU, since ESA has nothing to do with the EU.

I see several problems with the idea. One of those is ITAR. Another would be European governments writing a huge check to purchase a major component from an non-European company. ESA doesn't usually do this, because its main purpose is to stimulate EU space technology. They would rather pay more to pay for jobs and technological knowledge in Europe.

Part of DC will be made in Europe (IBDM's) and since DC is reusable it is probably more palatable than a throw-away design. All Ariane Fairings are Swiss (not EU) and Vega uses the Ukranian RD-843 engine (also not EU) so there is plenty of precedent.

The truth is Europe just doesnt have the money to develop this all on their own, so while they might like to do so Europe will benefit more from supporting DC than doing more paperwork for an indigenous system they cannot afford.

Logged

"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

I see several problems with the idea. One of those is ITAR. Another would be European governments writing a huge check to purchase a major component from an non-European company. ESA doesn't usually do this, because its main purpose is to stimulate EU space technology. They would rather pay more to pay for jobs and technological knowledge in Europe.

Part of DC will be made in Europe (IBDM's) and since DC is reusable it is probably more palatable than a throw-away design. All Ariane Fairings are Swiss (not EU) and Vega uses the Ukranian RD-843 engine (also not EU) so there is plenty of precedent.

The truth is Europe just doesnt have the money to develop this all on their own, so while they might like to do so Europe will benefit more from supporting DC than doing more paperwork for an indigenous system they cannot afford.

ESA is an European not an EU institution, a small but significant difference. Switzerland is an ESA member, so Ariane fairings coming from RUAG aren't really a precedent.

The VEGA 4th stage counts but a) there wasn't an European engine available b) there are plans to plans to replace it, so it's not a perfect example.

The service that is most comparable to a DC4Science that ESA (CIRA) has developed is IXV. That Launched on the 4th vega launch on a suborbital trajectory. There is a project (plan) called PRIDE that tries to develop a reusable orbital vehicle that can land on a runway. PRIDE should be launched by vega (-C). So the total take off mass should stay below 3mT (~6k lb). The IXV program had a cost of about 150mln euro. The PRIDE project will cost at least the same. DLR (Germany) has a plan to develop the Shefex hypersonic vehicles into a REX free flyer. REX FF should have a mass of 500 or 2000 kg, I can't remember the mass exactly.

ESA and European space agencies would like to fly experiments in space. The ISS has a limited capability, and some experiments are to dangerous for the ISS crew. The vehicles under development in europe have less then half the capability of DC. Some payloads will be to heavy. ESA could develop their own DC, with a program cost of much more than 500mln. Or they could buy a DC4SCIENCE flight for less than 200mln. Possibly NASA is interested in DC to ISS launches on ariane 62, as ISS contribution. And as backup for AtlasV.If you look at the history of DC, I think you could find Hermes and the ISS reentry vehicle (joint NASA-ESA development) that have contributed to the technology used in DC.

About the ITAR technology protection regulations; what does the USA have to fear from the Europeans? We are your NATO allies. We try to astablish a free trade partnership (TTIP). Why this market destroying distrust and US market protection?

I see several problems with the idea. One of those is ITAR. Another would be European governments writing a huge check to purchase a major component from an non-European company. ESA doesn't usually do this, because its main purpose is to stimulate EU space technology. They would rather pay more to pay for jobs and technological knowledge in Europe.

Part of DC will be made in Europe (IBDM's) and since DC is reusable it is probably more palatable than a throw-away design. All Ariane Fairings are Swiss (not EU) and Vega uses the Ukranian RD-843 engine (also not EU) so there is plenty of precedent.

The truth is Europe just doesnt have the money to develop this all on their own, so while they might like to do so Europe will benefit more from supporting DC than doing more paperwork for an indigenous system they cannot afford.

We don't know about the pressurized module on the back of the ship, but I suspect that it could go to Thales-Alenia. In short, if ESA gets enough contracts for the six CRS 2 flights, they could "pay" for a DC4S flight and still get a net "zero" cashflow. This is not unheard of and might be a deal in the back. Nothing wrong with it, either.

It's not just about development, it's also about continuing support costs. Missions. And means to participate in HSF, and possibly "commercial space".

Look, the ESM is an example of this. Perhaps this might be ... another?

And ... its proving and maintaining the HSF vehicle's integrity that is the costly part of this, at government standards, that is what "leveraging" the programs here would be about. For the prospect of running missions instead off the funds that would otherwise be consumed with such.

When I brought up the topic of DC flying on a non American rocket years back the issue of ITAR came up. How is this a non-issue now? Just curious...

ITAR doesn't mean you can't sell things on the USML to foreigners, it just means you have to get State Department permission and TAAs setup. These cost money and take time, but if LM and Boeing can get State Department permission to sell fighter jets to foreign countries, you better believe that SNC can get State Department permission to fly Dreamchaser on an Ariane 6.